Guest Post: GUNS: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly

Gun ownership and gun control are very controversial topics. If more people own guns then will there be more violence and more crime? If everyone is allowed to own guns then will there be negative consequences? Both of these questions are debateable and each of them has its proponents and opponents.

In this article we’ll take a look at some interesting gun statistics from an objective viewpoint. The point is not to argue for or against gun ownership and or gun control. With that said, let’s look at the good, the bad, and the ugly gun statistics.

The Good

Gun ownership in America – as a percentage of households – has been in a shallow decline since 1960. In 1960 almost 50% of households had a gun. In 2010 that percentage was down to around 40%.

Furthermore, the rates of firearm homicide deaths and non-fatal firearm crimes have also been falling steadily. From 1981 to 2010 those rates fell 45 and 75%, respectively.

Lastly, the incidence of intentional homicides per 100,000 people is lower in the US than it is in many other countries.

h/t @wu_tang_finance

In sum, the rates of gun ownership and firearm homicides deaths and non-fatal firearm crimes have been in decline for a while. Furthermore, the intentional homicide rate in the US is relatively low.

The Bad

The homicide rate in the US is higher than it is in most other developed nations.

h/t @gunsenseUSA

Moreover, gun ownership per 100 people is higher in the US than it is anywhere else in the world.

h/t @wu_tang_finance

Unfortunately, mass shooting casualties continue to be a problem for the US.

Homicide and gun ownership rates are down in the US, but relative to other countries, they’re still high.

In addition, annual mass shooting casualties are on the rise.

The Ugly

Spending on guns and ammo has risen with the gini ratio – a statistical measure of income inequality.

it’s also interesting to note that violent crimes are often committed by the same perpetrators.

If the US wants to reduce the incidence of violent crime then it should shift its focus away from incarceration / punishment…

…to treatment, rehabilitation, and prevention.

There’s no two ways about it – guns are dangerous.

That said, it’s not a question of “how many guns are out there?” – it’s a question of who’s holding them.

We live in a reactionist society. Often times, we don’t deal with important issues until we have to. If we can take a more proactive stance and concentrate on preventing gun crimes, on reducing the number of repeat offenders, and on the rehabilitation and reintegration of criminals into society then it’s likely that the rate of firearm homicides and the financial burden associated with incarceration would fall.

Most of the mass shootings are in locales where people aren't allowed to carry guns for their own protection, e.g. schools and malls posted to prohibit firearms. If those shootings are removed from the total, America looks a lot better than it already does.

My wife has essentially zero weapon/gun/firearm/pistol/whatever experience. I have been patiently working on nudging her towards learning the basics. We rented a pistol (9mm) at a range and after some basic coaching was doing pretty good, but the inital noise/recoil was a barrier.

So, let's shoot .22!

Wrong!

If you want a tin foil hat theory on .22, its because its the best way for a new individual to get the "gun experience" with out the recoil and without so much noise. It takes a while to desensatize to those things so that larger calibers can be practiced with and enjoyed.

I finally had to hit up my old man (retired) for a brick of .22! Then we got into the whole "shipping ammo" drama ...

We've found air rifles or air pistols with the .177 caliber does the same thing in getting people used to a gun. There is zero recoil, and they can enjoy shooting pellets time and again. And those things are really cheap.

Gander Mountain had 22LR for sale on its website a couple of times to do, but it was always gone when I tried to order. Luckily I was one of the nutjobs that stocked up. We're still shooting target practice here.

If you can severely restrict 22lr for, say, 6 years, you'll knock out 50% of future target shooters. At least, that's what they think. People still get interested as they get older. That's where we need to push.

owned by abc.

Oh yeah:

The Good

Gun ownership in America – as a percentage of households – has been in a shallow decline since 1960. In 1960 almost 50% of households had a gun. In 2010 that percentage was down to around 40%.

I agree completely! Except I'll take my old (1989) Taurus PT92 over the Beretta cause I can't take that slide mounted safety which is also a major complaint from its military users.

But I have found a lot more women who love shooting revolvers instead of semi-autos because the recoil is just one bump instead of the "bang-bing-bonk" recoil you get with a slide slamming back and forth.

You don't know what you are talking about. 9 mm can be as lethal, or even more lethal than a 45 ACP, but with less recoil (more control) and 2x the magazine capacity.

Give me a Springfield xDM with either Buffalo Bore or Corbon +P 115g hollowpoints and I'll go up against the Jack O'Connor theory anyday of the week.

I own both calibers and almost never carry the 45, even though it's a fine caliber. Not knocking it. But your statement is mythological, and factually incorrect. 45 ACP is NOT the gold standard for personal defense as most people think it is, although I would definitely put it in the top-4 or top-5.

When I carry, it's usually the gold standard round for one shot threat stops: 357 mag with Federal 357B 125 gr JHP. That's in a hammerless SP101, which is snubby so it's now for the feint of heart. Yeah, 2.75" barrel - reduced muzzled velocity, mean wrist flip. I know. But I don't plan on a 20, 30 foot encounter. The vast majority of firearms-related self defense situations are very up front and personal. It's not going to be the gun range distance, that's for sure. That round though, in a GP100, is going to smoke any other caliber in lethality, given similar shot placement. That's just a fact. 45 isn't even close.

And I pray that I never have to fight a shot in anger. Who the hell would want the legal headache and that sitting on their conscious?

If I feel the need for a semi-auto it's the XDm 9 mm with Corbon +P's. 19 plus one in the pipe.

9 mm is NOT a 45 on stun. The kinetic energy of a 115 grain +P has a kinetic energy of 450 ft-lbs. The average 230 gr 45 ACP has 415-430 on average.

If the "big hole theory" is so valid then why is the Federal .357B the gold standard for handgun lethality in SD situations?

The 45 ACP is a fine caliber and you can't go wrong with choosing it (I own one). But to call the 9 mm basically a pea shooter is a bunch of crap. The only true advantage the 45 ACP has is in cold weather situations, where the 45 can carry 230 gr ball, which can more effectively penetrate thick outerwear and still do considerable damage to the threat. That's it. But then I am considering the 357 again with semi-wadcutters in that scenario.

Ohh, 3rd carry option? 380 ACP with alternating Buffalo Barnes JHP and Buffalo Bore Cast Hardball. Still beats a punch in the face and packs a whallop better than the average 38 SP. True the 45 is more effective than this, but even a subcompact is large compared to my LCP and when I want to "go light", this combo is pretty fucking deadly in its own right for close-up, face to face (mugging, carjacking) encounters. A cast hardball in the chest cavity or ocular region is going to put someone down.

I will always challenge the "45 is better" or worse, "the 45 is best" myth when I see it, if only so that new shooters don't fall into that trap when they can get an equally lethal option that has more capacity, and far more importantly, much greater controllability and compactness than the 45.

9mm ammo has improved considerably over the years. I would not feel at all undergunned carrying a 9, I just choose not to. I prefer .45 for two reasons 1) 9mm may expand but .45 will not shrink 2) talk to any WWII veteran who used his 1911 in anger--to a man they will tell you it's a one shot stopper. I also own a snubby 357. In the right circumstances its a great gun and I do carry it some. However, the noise, concussion, and night blindness caused by its firing erases much if its admitted ft/lb advantage, particularly from a short barrel. And God forbid I had to take a longer shot with it (I agree statistically that is not as likely as a bad breath distance encounter). If an active shooter scenario develops while I'm dining with my family or at the mall I'm far more interested in putting a shot on target quickly to change the guy's mind about continuing his rampage than I am with whether I kill him with the first round. Shot placement is the key and the key to shot placement is the correct gun for the shooter's abilities and regular professional training and practice.

Agreed on the snubby. 9 mm is my first choice out in the afternoon to evening precisely because with Fed 357B's it's like staring into the sun after a night shot. But like I explained below, it's a great fit for me and it packs one hell of a whallop for its size.

Noise doesn't bother me, and can be an advantage in some cases as it scares the shit out of friends that have stood next to me when I've popped a few rounds off.

Disagree with the accuracy issue. That gun is much more accurate that you think. Maybe it's just not "your gun", but that SP is an extension of my arm.

PS. I have tried reduced muzzle flash Buffalo Bore's and they seriously reduce flash. But lately I have had a tough time finding them. Buffalo Bore makes GREAT ammo IMO.

Sorry, it's often hard to gauge intent from written word as it is in normal conversation. My apologies. It just came off, to me at least, and I guess I was wrong, that I was encountering the Jack O'Conner fanatic Club, if you know what I mean, where every caliber except the 45 ACP bascially sucks.

45 is a fine caliber, which is why I own one. It's just not my first carry choice. I prefer the 9 over the 45 (actually I am 357 during the day, 9 in the evening, and 380 when I have lug something around for a while - That's because the previous poster is right. The muzzle flash of the snubby with a full throated 357B is blinding... and I have shot thousands of those rounds to get a good handle on the muzzle flip).

So I carry the 9 in the evening, because I want control. Ironically, my control over the SP101 with full bang 125's is amazing, due to practice and "just chemistry with the piece" as others who have shot it have looked at me and said "what the %$%#$ is wrong with you! That's gonna break your wrist and the perp will beat you to death with your own gun. - But all that practice, and that "natural fit"....

It shows you that provided the caliber, loading, and bullet choice are sufficient, the best gun is the one that you shoot best.

That's why I didn't knock the 45. It's a great gun overall, and thee great gun in an arsenal for many just as my little wristbreaker SP101 is a "great gun" for ME.

if we just moved chicago to canada..then canada would have a high rate of gun crime, come on canada take detroit and philly and that garden spot camden NJ ah heck take the whole state of NJ too. and then you would be number 1 for gun homicides. thats racissst.

What gets me is the charade of gun control (background checks, etc.) promoted through the mainstream media for the consumption of the non-gunowners. Case in point: www.armslist.com? We are legally allowed to buy, sell, and trade guns as individuals as if they are baseball cards. Of course (and rightly so), it is illegal to sell a gun to someone you know is a felon or otherwise not legally allowed to own guns, but as I understand the law (I'm in Alabama) there is no legal burden for the seller to do a background check on one they are selling the gun to. In other words, if I've just met you and show you my shiny new toy and you like it so much you make me a nice cash offer on the spot, we can make an old fashioned exchange and move on our merry ways. For the media to even talk about "background checks" is deceptive because it acts like there is not this real and perfectly legal face to face market that exists outside of the dealer network that is burdened with calling in and checking an individual when selling them a gun. How stupid is that? Why even burden the dealers with it when non-eligible gun owners will just buy off of individuals on www.gunbroker.com or www.armslist.com? It's a damn stupid charade . . .

At the same time, they are making it more mind bending and complex to be an FFL. Do an FFL search for your area. You'll see the numbers are down.i gave up mine because I just got too nervous about what little nit picky thing I'd forget would put me in hot water with BATFE. It was just a question of, is it worth it? Either have a full time compliance Attorney or risk having my ass resized in a Fed pen? Fuck all that.

All the purchases of either rifles or pistols I have made through GunBroker required that a party holding a FFL completed the transaction. The FFL in turn had to submit the info for a bckground check before the gun was delivered to me. When selling a gun, I am required to ship it through a FFL after getting a fax'd copy of his or her license.

Of course I am not buying or selling guns for criminal purposes. Obviously if I were I would be buying my guns on the street corner from another crook who stole them in the first place.

So, at the end of the day, the non-criminal has to put up with the added nuisance and cost while the crook does not.

But I do have that cargo carrier that sticks into the 2" receiver. A neat thing is that I also have an industrial plastic 55 gal. drum with lid and ring that locks tights and cradles perfectly in the carrier. Two ratchet straps keep that barrel so tight to the carrier that I could probablly roll the truck and the barrel would not budge. Perfect water-tight storage and transport for gear and whatever. As a bonus, it can just be rolled off and rolled to wherever.

Could have saved my friends life. He walked into a convenince store that happened to be in the middle of a robbery. The clerk and he and one other shopper handed all their belongings to the two 'diverse' teen ['could have been my son'] thugs but the animals shot them anyway. The clerk and other shopped survived. My 24 y.o. buddy died on that linoleum floor that afternoon.

You have described my worst nightmare. I feel for you. Raised with firearms. You hope they can help you protect your loved ones and friends. Unfortunately most events happen quicker than they can be used to prevent a bad guy from doing his damage. That doesnt deter me from owning them and being ready. The nightmare of not having one is worse than the nightmare of not being able to get to it. Saddest thing is you defending yourself when you are simply in fear often gets you prosecuted by law enforcement, or worse, sued by the bad guy's family for loss of companionship.

So many stories like this including mine. A family member was murdered for $400 with a fire arm during a robbery. Never even came close to catching the animals. I was about as anti gun as you could be in those days. Within a year or so I was robbed and nearly died. That will take the nauseating "we don't need guns" right out of ya. After that I became a legal gun owner. Not long after that I had the good fortune to defend myself and others with a fire arm. That time had I not been armed I would not be here to write this post. There are animals out there that will kill you as easily as they breath. No amount of legislation, debate or wishful thinking will change that. The police are there to mop up after violent crimes have been committed, not prevent them. YOU are the first responder!

"I'd love to spit some Beechnut in that dude's eyes and shoot him with my ole 45
Cause a country boy can survive country folks can survive
Because you can't starve us out and you can't make us run
Cause we'se them ole boys raised on shotguns
We say grace and we say m'am if you ain't in to that we don't give a damn"

If you included mass shootings by Americans with guns serving overseas they would have an even more convincing argument for banning guns.

Alternatively you could just sentence the violent prisoners to work for Academi so thay can pay big$$$ restitution to their victims... save obscene amounts on prison costs... and still let them have their fun.

Elite body guards should be required to have violent, multiple conviction prison records and heavy med scripts (so they are better) before being allowed to protect societies weathiest, most influential people.

It's amazing how many "liberals" you can't make a dent in talking about economics or government. But take them to the range, put a gun in their hand, and it's a totally different ball game. 90% of them fade from their anti-gun stance after the second magazine. Two months later they've bought their own gun and you see them at the range every now and then, with a big grin on their face as they empty a tray.

Sometimes you just gotta know how to relate to people. Even the most die-hard anti-gun people will often change their opinion after they hit the paper a few times.

You know what else works with these liberals? Put them in a convenience store where the first guy in line pulls out a gun and shoots the clerk dead, turns and shoots the next customer in the head and then demands that the girlfriend of said customer remove her pants, all the while telling the rest of the patrons that they are next. That really seems to take the gun carrying objection right away from them. Not many of them argue that the cops are "only" 30 minutes away.

You're right...most of them are afraid of their own shadow...but then I have 2 obamabot neighbors who both shoot because they lived in a Dem controlled badass city -and hence have seen how bad it can get, own firearms and can shoot...but they absolutely cannot make the connection that the people that they vote for would remove their right to possess firearms in a nanosecond.

I find it interesting that those that would discredit the premise behind the second amendment all ways pull out the nuclear option.You know the argument.

It runs like this:If the Constitution gives a person the right to own a gun without restriction, then a person should have the right to own an atomic bomb, tank or a RPG.

Well, this may come as a surprise to you but in as much as the Supreme Court has deemed a corporation to be a person; privately owned nuclear bombs are strategically placed in and around many of our major cities.They exist in the form of nuclear reactors and they are manned by individuals all of whom are afflicted with the various foibles common in the rest of us.On any given day, an individual or group of individuals could decide for whatever reason to shut the pumps down in one or more of these reactors and they could make those cities uninhabitable for centuries. We run that risk every day simply because we want to keep the lights on.

As for tanks and RPGs, they are already in the hands of private individuals working as contract employees for various federal and semi federal agencies such as Black Water and Halliburton.

As I recall, Tom Clancy’s wife bought Tom a Sherman Tank for a present one year.Privately owned strategic bombers fly from one air show to the next.I soloed with a B-17 in the air pattern.An acquaintance of mine has five fighter bombers in his hanger and a Mig parked on the tarmac.Privately owned howitzers light up the ridges around Gettysburg every Fourth of July weekend. There is more heavy ordinance in the hands of private individuals than you can imagine.We tolerate this because many people enjoy these bits of living history put on display.

I am truly astounded by the general assumption that we can make ourselves safe by making ourselves defenseless. This flies in the face of history.No adequately armed population was ever genocided.They had to be disarmed first.Every disarmament was served up on the pretext that it served public safety.

Europe holds itself up as being a shining example of civility and more common sense gun laws.Yet, Europe was the fulcrum of three world wars and is home to Dachau and Buchenwald. The Europeans are very civil until they are not.

The three mass killings with the highest death tolls in the United States did not even involve guns.If we take the government’s accounting of events, the most successful mass murderers in American History used box cutters as their weapons of choice.The second used a truck load to fertilizer and the third used a gallon or so of gasoline.Check out the Happy Land Social Club fire.

Your automobile poses a far greater threat to you and your family than does the gun owning public.

A significant, well armed minority here in the United States believes that the end of the Republic will be ushered in with gun confiscation.Some of these people have taken Solzhenitsyn’s lamentation of how he burned in the camps to heart. Within that minority there is another minority that will resist any effort of confiscation with deadly force.Some estimate that minority to be around three percent of the gun owning population.If that assumption is correct, then we are talking about a swarm of well over a million men and women.

Agents and provocateurs serving our enemies are well aware of these numbers. They would like nothing more than to set us against one another.Your inability to properly asses risk may inadvertently light the fuse that starts the next civil war.Unlike that last war, the battle lines will be drawn between our urban and rural populations.Without the willing support of the hinterlands, our cities cannot feed themselves much less keep the lights on.

Those that are pushing this agenda are tools of those that would destroy our country.

Here here! I am for that up to and including another consenting adult, if that is your bag.

In all seriousness, most arguments stem from weakness in all of these issues. We talk about how this firearm or that firearm has a sporting purpose or how they are just like any other semi auto rifle (say, FN FAL versus a Remington 750). Then the NRA will come along and sell us out 90% and brag about the 10% they saved.

This whole mythical safe society is just that, a myth. Because it only takes 1 individual to shatter this false sense of safety. Then society tries to rebuild this facade by some new rule that would stop whatever just happened. And on and on, down the road to tyranny we go.

I have little doubt as to 'The Tribes' hidden agenda, no need to speak any further on that, but if you truly follow this back as far as you can go you will find things that shock you even more. Do a little research into the orgins of Feminism and how far back that goes and thier goals, I'll give you a hint I can track that back to 1674 anf the petition against coffee - Happy Hunting!

I am from Kentucky everyone knows we are bat shit crazy because of the ky long rifle which beat the British. All I can say is since then the civil war ww1 ww 2 is come and get some. Ps I do have a ky long rifle , and my fave pistol is a 1851 navy and my 1911. As for what else I have guess ps I have family friends that's gay and transgendered . Do I agree with ? No . But. It's not my place to judge. Hitler went after the weak the gays the unwanted as much as the Jews. Arm yourselves

karl denninger wrote an excellent piece that would destroy this one. Basically, if you take a few inner cities with very 'urban' populations, which also tend to have gang problems, out of the equation, gun crime in this country drops down to almost nothing. Just a handful of inner cities, nearly all of which have very strict gun laws on the book, the crime rate disappears. And why are all these people shooting each other and anyone unlucky enough to be nearby? drug profits. This article fails to mention drug prohibition is THE reason most of these shootings happen. 'the war on drugs is a war on freedom' - Laurance Vance

The person who pulls the trigger is to blame. Not guns, not drugs. Not schools, streets, or neighborhoods. These are all inanimate objects. Who pulls the trigger?

58% of the time, that person is a black male betweeen the ages of 14-24, despite being only 1% of the total population.

The gun problem in America is: Young black males with guns.

There. Said it. Maybe it's not a gun problem after all.

B-b-but raycist. I know. I can see. The stats are there for all to see. Don't believe them? Ask a cop. Don't believe them? Purchase a police scanner and listen to the descriptions of the perps in real time. Political Correctness won't let us speak the evidence before our eyes, so we must make any number of excuses involving a myriad of inanimate objects instead of confronting the real problem.

Which is: young black males with guns.

And the PC regime won't allow anyone to say so, much less act against. Stop and frisk worked, but it was catching too many blacks, so it had go. Zimmerman worked. But he shot a black, so he had to get railroaded.

So. Systematically speaking...

The Welfare State pops them out too quickly for the Police State to lock them up. Elites are heavily involved in the public-privateering of both these States, so in true Anarcho-tyrannist fashion expect nothing to be done except the further harassment of law-abiding, primarily white, gun owners.

Know the risks, and protect yourselves people. And by all means stop parroting the narratives that promote Welfare & Prison State agendas.

Tell that to the mother that pops a few caps in an intruder to protect her kids.

Furthermore, this one:

"The homicide rate in the US is higher than it is in most other developed nations."

Needs to be broken down by demographic and region to become understandable. The demographics of it is very enlightening.

And then this nugget of feces:

"it’s also interesting to note that violent crimes are often committed by the same perpetrators."....."If the US wants to reduce the incidence of violent crime then it should shift its focus away from incarceration / punishment…"

Pods, while I support your point, exactly who beside a few of us, gives a flying fuck what the constitution says? Anyone notice that virtually everything they are doing is not in the constitution and when you hear the Supremes explain it, if unconstitutional laws or government actions take place and are not substantially resisted by CONgress, they are de facto amendments and good as constitutional.

We can argue about constitutionality all day long, but those imposing on us don't give a fuck.

I recommend watching the whole video - I promise it's very direct, short and sweet. My favorite part is about 2:15 ish when, if you slow it down, you can see the woman's leg pass through the planter box.